Skruffs wrote:vollkan wrote:Skruffs wrote:
My point is that someone who is criticizing another for 'not pulling their own weight', and is at the same time is relying on other people to form cases FOR THEM to review, is in fact criticizing OTHER players for not pulling THEIR OWN weight.
I think what you meant to say is that someone who is criticising other people for not pulling their weight whilst, simultaneously, relying on others for cases to review is not pulling their weight.
I agree. I don't see the relevance of that though. We have:
1) You making a dodgy case and not 'pulling your weight'
2) Armlx making scant contribution other than criticising your case's lack of 'weight'
Neither of those is a good thing, and neither justifies the other. Armlx not pulling his weight does not legitimise you rejecting his "demand for significant amounts of proof from other people".
You got that wrong. I *never* have to legetimize a rejection of someone else's demand that I do ANYTHING for them. I have no obligation to do ANYTHING for armlx or anyone else who tells me to make cases for them to follow. What you should have said was that him not pulling his own weight does not justify me making dodgy cases, which would actually have applied, IF he had demanded I make a case before I made a dodgy one.
Now you are just playing semantics. Of course you don't
have
to obey any instruction - this is a game. You no more need to obey an instruction to post a case, or post a proper case, then you need to obey an instruction to only post in pig Latin. The point is, however, that making cases, arguing, and so forth is what drives this game.
Let me be blunt: I really dislike the fact that you would refer to the level of activity of somebody else as a means by which to bypass a criticism of your case.
At the most rudimentary summary of the events:
Armlx wrote:
Umm, Hjallti replaced in pretty recently, the number of responses to his posts is going to be limited regardless of who it is. I also responded to his major post about there beign 2 vigs and what not, agreeing with the logic.
You also suggest I should auto know thats your only reason, which is pretty stray to vote off of. Maybe at the start of day one its worth a vote, but afterwards its merely one piece to add to a full case. I assumed you had more than just that.
Skruffs, I am unimpressed with the effort you are putting into this game. You really need to step up your reading and analysis before I consider anything you have said. I quite frankly ignored your posts yesterday as you were commenting on 7 page old content out of current context.
Skruffs wrote: Amlx - you and the person he replaced also didn't discuss each other.
You quoted the thing from hjltill, didn't comment on it except to bring attention to it,a nd then questioned why someone else brought it up.
It really does not bother me if you are 'unimpressed' by me. I'm actually used to people using my 'lack of reason' as an excuse to ignore me - IF you want, I will compile a list of the percentage of people who say stuff like that and turn out ot be scum.
I am interested, not in your focus on only targeting cult-recruiters, but in your demand for significant amounts of proof from other people to explain why they are focusing on cult recruiters.
I'm kind of curious about your attitude - you seem to be rather lofty and comfortable in the position you are in. Why?
Also, you did talk about hjalltill in another post:
<snip>
I think it's interesting that you have no problem criticizing other people's attempts at pushing things, but you yourself admit that you have no leads. You criticize me, apparently, for suggestuing you should 'auto-know' my reasons for doing things, but YOUR attitude is that you do not have any intentions of investigating motivations and such, yourself. Which is why I am asking if you can be so comfortable in your place in the game as to be so critical of others and unhelpful yourself.
You don't explain the significance of the point you make against Hjallti. Instead, you go on a tirade against Armlx for criticising your activity level. It's patently evasive. The number of posts made by somebody is irrelevant to the question of whether or not your own case is substantial or not.
Really, the most you ought to have said would be:
"Hey, armlx. Post a scumdar."
Instead, your bring his lack of content in as a relevant factor. The clearest example of this to me was when you said:
Skruffs wrote: I think that people, if they are going to criticize the 'quality' of other player's probings and cases, should at the very least offer their own in return.
The fact that you made a dodgy case is not, in and of itself, relevant here. The issue is with how you dealt with criticism of it.
Yosarian2 wrote:To repeat myself,
Yosarian2 wrote:Volkan: I can appriciate a good debate as well as anyone, trust me; but, um, any thoughts on who might be scum?
In fact,
vote:Volkan
. With a deadline, I'm starting to wonder if he's intentionally drawing out a pointless debate, repeating the same points over and over again, just to stall us out. I wouldn't mind if he was actually voting for Skruffs and/or making a case against Skruffs, but as it just feels like he's trying to look active for the sake of trying to look active but not really doing anything helpful.
I see two points here. 1) You can't see any point to the argument, therefore 2) it is most likely I am scum trying to lead people up a never-ending staircase.
2) is conjecture and unfalsifiable. It's your assumption as to my motive and I can say no more about it.
However, 2) is very much dependent on 1) being true. And I can address 1). Do I think Skruffs is scummy on the basis of our argument? Yes. I haven't voted for him simply because I am trying to see if I can understand where he is coming from. Suffice to say, that I do think Skruffs is scummy - primarily from the fact that he strikes out against Armlx's level of content in defence of his own, which expands through the argument we have been having.
